It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Most people take on jobs because if they dont they can not feed or clothe themselves or their families.
A worker chooses to take on a job. A worker chooses where to apply. A worker chooses what to put up with and what not to put up with. A worker chooses whether to speak up or not about bad treatment. A worker chooses how to deal with and respond to challenges. A worker chooses how long to stay in a job. A worker chooses whether to get additional education or not.edit on 19-2-2012 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Skyfloating
How are collectively owned means of production possible without Government?
Originally posted by Skyfloating
It is claimed that in socialism "the collective own the means of production". Others say "workers own the means of production". Is that to say that they own the means of production whether they created them or not?
Originally posted by ANOK
A collective is simply a group of people working together on a shared common goal. It is simply a different way of organizing labour, without top down hierarchical authority, all workers have an equal say.
You're not interested in learning you just want to find ways to dismiss it.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Originally posted by daskakik
I have always understood workers to be the employees in a particular company and not just every able body in a society. This means that every employee in a company is a co-owner or shareholder of that company. It doesn't mean that he can walk into any other business and take things like they were his.
I agree. Lets see if ANOK, who the question was originally directed at, agrees with this.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Originally posted by ANOK
A collective is simply a group of people working together on a shared common goal. It is simply a different way of organizing labour, without top down hierarchical authority, all workers have an equal say.
"Having equal say" without top-down authority means:
Worker 1: "We need more coffee"
Worker 2: "No we dont"
Worker 3: "Lets get more water instead of coffee"
Worker 4: "Lets not get anything".
No?
Google Video Link |
Originally posted by ANOK
Sad thing is this has been explained over and over, read what we're saying intsead of trying to find ways to dismiss it, and you might learn something.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
If you were to give ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a country or at least a city running on your proposed system successfully over a longer period of time, I would not be dismissive.
But seeing what various socialist models have done to countries (Greece being the latest example), it is my duty as a human being to question and counter it, even if that might frustrate you.
Originally posted by ANOK
If it worked like that, how do you think worker collectives are so successful? People are not idiots, we don't need a 'private owner' holding our hands.
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by eboyd
Good vid he makes a lot of good points, I don't completely agree with the idea of outlawing human rental though, I mean while government is under the influence of capitalism that will never happen. They would be shooting their own foot.
He says it's not anti-capitalism but it would cause it to fail, a good thing, and it would be socialism if it worked and the workers owned and controlled their own labour.
Americans have been so conditioned to fear the word socialism. If you explain socialism without using that term most people agree with the idea of worker ownership.
Originally posted by eboyd
yeah, i agree 100% with every aspect of this comment. what i like about that interview is that he is not a socialist, anarchist, or any other -ist, he just knows how to use logic and realize that the current system is a form of slavery that is only a few degrees different from the slavery that was the backbone of early American labor, and that he realizes that the only just workplace is one which is owned and controlled directly by its workers. he seems to advocate some ideas i am not particularly fond of, such as certain forms of taxation and actually outlawing human rentals, but his critique, i feel, is 100% on point.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
If you were to give ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a country or at least a city running on your proposed system successfully over a longer period of time, I would not be dismissive.
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Boy, I got a bug to launch photoshop and make some nice infographics for all of you who loooove socialism.
These graphics are simplified of course - easy to understand. Wealth in these graphics I have represented by how full your beer glass is. Beer = Wealth. Okay?
Here is capitalism in its ideal form (it is not in its ideal form in this country right now. We have crony capitalism/fascism at the moment, and that needs to be changed, quickly. I did not make a graphic for fascism.
Anyway: In this graphic, you have a government that is small, performing the functions spelled out int he constitution, using as little money as practical do do it. Citizens are as well-off as their ambition allows.
Capitalism:
Citizen A paid attention in school, went to college and got a degree and is making a decent living as an Engineer, maybe - like most folks.
Citizen B decided it would be more fun to smoke weed behind the school rather than go to class, so his grades weren't good enough to get into college. He's finally cleaned up his act but he's still only driving a garbage truck because it's been long enough since his last DUI.
Citizen C worked his way through business school and earned an MBA. As an entrepreneur, he started a garbage collection business. Citizen B works for him - unless he falls off the wagon again.
Citizen D went to Art School and is working as a painter. He doesn't make a killing at it, but he loves what he does. This was his choice and he's content with his life. Plus he has a hot artsy-fartsy girlfriend - that always helps a little.
So you see, everyone has the same opportunity (more or less) to make something of themselves. Some are more fortunate, some less in the beginning, but with hard work and ambition, anyone can achieve their goals in life.
------
Socialism (as promised by politicians):
All of you do-gooders who love love love the idea of making the playing field even, this is what you THINK socialism is. The government is big enough to administer the national wealth, and doles it out evenly to everyone. The citizens do the same jobs as in the graphic above. but the garbage man makes as much as the garbage company CEO, theoretically. I mean, why should he make more, he only spent 6 years in college and has an IQ twice that of his employee. Why should the engineer work hard? He's not going to benefit any more than the artist. Maybe he'll just cut some corners in that new building he's designing.
Socialism kills ambition, even in it's ideal form.
------
Socialism (The reality)
Oh, no, this won't happen here, this is America! Puhlease. Do you think power hungry elites are any different than they've ever been throughout history? Answer: NO.
This is the reality of socialism: The government takes it ALL, and doles out as little as it needs to to keep people quiet, no more. everyone lives in poverty, except the ruling elites and their comrades.
Until the inevitable revolution, of course.
_____
So there you go, I hope this little lesson with pictures helped all you ignorant socialists understand what you are finding yourself enamored with. It is dangerous. It is destructive. So knock it off.
Originally posted by eboyd
and btw, many socialists are just fine with people owning their own means of production as long as they do not employ, and therefore exploit, workers for a wage. i am personally just fine, for example, with Homesteading and artisans creating their own products and selling them on a market, but as soon as they ask someone to help them, while i wouldn't want to enforce a law telling them that it is not ok to employ them, i would be opposed to that new worker being employed for a wage rather than having equal and direct control over the business.edit on 2/19/2012 by eboyd because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Originally posted by dadgad
Not exactly. People take jobs under threat of starvation, because they have to.
If someone is under threat of starvation it is not the employers fault. If anything, the employer has the means to help by giving him a job.edit on 19-2-2012 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by dadgad
Employers don't help, employers are interested in profit only.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Originally posted by dadgad
Employers don't help, employers are interested in profit only.
Tell that to a few Trillion people in world history who employers have provided with jobs.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Tell that to a few Trillion people in world history who employers have provided with jobs.